Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Sh. Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar Etc Etc vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. Etc. Etc on 20 July, 1994
(i). Eminent domain is a right inherent in every
sovereign to take and appropriate property
belonging to citizens for public use. To put it
W.P.(C).29890/10 & 11709/11
12
differently the sovereign is entitled to reassert its
dominion over any portion of the soil of the State
including private property without its owner's
consent provided that such assertion is on account
of public exigency and for public good - Dwarkadas
Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spg. And Wvg.Co. Ltd,
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India and
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat
M/S Kamal Trading P.Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 December, 2011
14. Subsequently, in the judgment in Ramal Trading
Private Limited V. State of West Bengal and Ors.( 2012(2)
SCC 25), the Apex Court held that it must be borne in mind
that the proceedings under the LA Act are based on the
principle of eminent domain and that Section 5-A is the only
protection available to the person whose lands are sought to
W.P.(C).29890/10 & 11709/11
11
be acquired. It was further held that it is the minimal
safeguard afforded to him to protect himself from arbitrary
acquisition by pointing out to the authority concerned, that
public purpose is absent in the proposed acquisition or that
the acquisition is mala fide. The Apex Court also held that
the Act being an ex-propriatory legislation, its provisions will
have to be strictly construed.
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Thakur Kuldeep Singh(D) Thr. Lr. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 March, 2010
15. Having thus seen the importance and the requirement
of the enquiry under Section 5A , I shall now proceed to
examine the circumstances in which the urgency clause
provided under Section 17(4) can be invoked by the
authorities. This question came up for consideration of the
Apex Court in its judgment in Radhy shyam (dead)
through Lr. & Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors..(2011
(5) SCC 553), where in paragraph 77 it was held as follows;
Dwarkadas Shrinivas vs The Sholapur Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 27 August, 1950
(i). Eminent domain is a right inherent in every
sovereign to take and appropriate property
belonging to citizens for public use. To put it
W.P.(C).29890/10 & 11709/11
12
differently the sovereign is entitled to reassert its
dominion over any portion of the soil of the State
including private property without its owner's
consent provided that such assertion is on account
of public exigency and for public good - Dwarkadas
Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spg. And Wvg.Co. Ltd,
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India and
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat